Any of you pro oil drillers live near the Gulf?

That's a very sophmoric analysis.

There are many who believe that oil drilling in any environment can be done safely and that it is an issue of national security.

Not only does our economy in general depend upon a reliable source of energy but so does the general welfare of our citizens - especially the poor.

Applying your level of intellectual analysis then one could say that you are saying...

Waa, Waa, Waa, I don't care if the poor can afford food.

Waa, Waa, Waa, I don't care if the poor can afford heat.

Waa, Waa, Waa, I don't care if the poor can afford to drive to work.

 

No buses around here.

No doubt there are many places where there is no real local public transportation.

 

so what that is not true of everyone who owns a truck. But even if it were big deal.

 

Did you expect anything else.

 

"Sophomoric" is an understatement.

Maybe "freshmanic?"

 

You tell him Rev! I love my truck!

 

Overgeneralize much?

 

Me too. But don't let this happen again. :laugh:

 

I've never understood why people care so much about what other people drive. I don't care what rich people drive. They can drive houses around, it doesn't bother me. Why are people so angry at other people for being rich? I don't hate Bill Gates, and the man is filthy rich. God told us to be content with what we have and I try to do that.

 

I think there is an opportunity here that people are failing to recognize. We can light the gulf of mexico and two things will happen smoke will rise into the atmosphere blocking out the sun creating a cooling trend agianst global warming. And since the gulf is lit all we have to do is power Louisiana with calculator solar power cells.

 

Because they need to create class division so as to demonize the rich and push their Marxist agenda.

 

Then why don't you move there.

 

Yes, I still want us to drill for oil wherever we can find it. I want us to use reasonable precautions and be realistic about the risk verses benefits. If we can't deal with the risks then I want us to shut up and stop using oil as a fuel and source of raw material for all the petrochemicals made from it including many types of plastic.

Everything we do has risks associated with it. Hunting for food with spears did. Gather firewood did. Chasing buffalo on a horse did. Hunting whales did. Logging did and still does! Drilling for oil does. Collecting it and transporting it does. Refining it into gasoline and petrochemicals does. Driving trucks, running trains, sailing ships, and flying airplanes all can be risky.

No one should assume they can enjoy the benefits of civilization without some measure of risks and consequences including accidents. Things cost a lot because they're hard to get, gather, and refine into useful products.

We can stop drilling for oil and go back to burning wood, coal, and peat but there isn't enough of it and it too will create problems. We could use nuclear power to generate electricity but fear of "nuclear" nee "atomic" bombs keeps good engineering from prevailing. Instead we play with windmills - they used those on farms before electricity - thinking there's a free answer.

If we build enough of those windmills it will create such a drag on the earth's rotation that the days will get longer - some of you will actually believe that one!

The earth is huge compared to man and all his combined activities. The ocean is very resilient and has endured many volcanoes, mud flows, thermal vents, ice ages, heat ages, etc. It will endure this oil spill and recover without a problem regardless what we do or don't do.

Trees fell on loggers and killed them. We kept on logging but made it safer. Coal mines collapsed or exploded and trapped and killed miners. We kept on mining and made it safer. Electricity caused fires and electrocuted people. We kept on generating it and made it safer. People kill themselves and others in automobiles every day and a bit less often enough in trains, airplanes, and ships. We keep on traveling for business and pleasures. Motorcycles are dangerous but we keep using them mostly because we like them.

Litigation has created the concept of a risk free world and one in which the consequences of such risk has to lay blame on someone usually with the deepest pockets. That's what this will end up being. It will be a hunt for someone to lay blame on. It will only jack up the cost of the products we use and it will not eliminate the risk involved in getting them to market.

 

By the way, just wanted to point out to those not from the area that by "LA", I mean Lower Alabama, not Louisiana.

 

I wonder why the Obama administration is so slow in dealing with this.

Are they going to wait for the oil to make landfall before doing anything?

 

The news released to the public by the oil company's several early accounts not only underestimated the amount of oil released to the environment, but continued to minimize. Was this for public consumption only? Was it an attempt to control public alarm? Or is it characteristic of communications within the industry itself... and industry's communications with government agencies which are likely to become involved? Unfortunately, this contributes to a slow response, an appearance that containment initiatives are likely to be sufficient, etc.. Who but 'insiders' can know what communications of this disaster might have flowed with information to others within the industry itself....... those most likely to also have back-up procedures, equipment, and trained personnel, ready to respond to similar events? An event this large could have utilized the combining of industry resources.... and early recognition, assessment, and moving into place with co-ordinated preparations. Just how much of this occurred (or is occurring), we do not know. Unfortunately, this and other similar events are likely to give the marxist state its politically popular arguments to move toward nationalization of these resources and the industry, in the name of 'control' and 'public safety'. Remember Rahm Emanuel's statement to the effect of never loose the opportunity presented by a crisis?

Last nights news reported that 15 miles of boom(?) (floating 'barrier') was being laid between the oil slick and the esctuaries of wild life. This is all the industry has. Even these barriers are insufficient for holding back .....as any one with common sense who has seen the workings of the current and the wind upon the surface on an open size of water..... the chop of the water will cross the top of the floating barrier... and the rise and falls of swells will lift the barrier above the surface and allow oil and water to flow under.

For anyone into invention........ There might be a fortune in inventing a product, an absorbant, which has a greater affinity to displace water and absorb oil: Particularly if it could be made in a form which could be reclaimable from the surface and not consumed by ocean life nor add toxicity to the waters.